Re: [gentoo-project] Council: Policy for Systemd units

[Markos Chandras]

On 12 June 2013 17:51, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> Dnia 2013-06-12, o godz. 18:37:08
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> napisał(a):
>
>> >>>>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>>
>> >> There was the argument that the unit file wasn't accepted upstream,
>> >> and I wouldn't dismiss this lightly. Often it's a cleaner solution
>> >> if files foreign to a package are installed by a separate
>> >> supplementary package. It avoids recompilation of the original
>> >> package by the user, for example.
>>
>> > So is openrc file.
>> > So is logrotate file.
>> > So are cron scripts.
>>
>> I was more thinking about support files for Emacs, where we do this
>> all the time: If the file is included with the upstream package, it's
>> being installed by that package's ebuild. Otherwise, it will go into
>> its own separate package. (And I guess it is similar for Vim.)
>
> That's very inconsistent and therefore problematic for users. Some
> packages work out-of-the-box, others require manually merging
> additional packages...
>
> I was thinking of trying to find a better way of providing support
> files. I thought about it for a minute then decide it's not really
> worth it. There's no simpler and more efficient way than just adding
> that tiny file to the package.
>
> Even if that sums up to 10 different files, no other solution can be
> better. If you introduce additional packages, the ebuilds, cache, vardb
> -- it is all going to take up more space than those installed files.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny

This entire thread proves how immature we are as a developer community
and that we rather
ignore our users for the sake of our interests and stubbornness. And
of course this is a classic example
of a non-existing or bad leadership.

--
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang